If you are on your bike on the east side of Frome Rd somewhere along the stretch opposite the University of Adelaide and you want to head north for a hundred meters without having to cross Frome Rd twice, you have 2 options. There is the bike lane with arrows pointing in the opposite direction. I don't think the arrows have any legal standing, but obviously they are there to indicate the direction cyclists are expected to travel. The second option is to ride on the footpath now that we legally can. I can how this would annoy pedestrians who are denied the other half of the path which has been allocated to cyclists. What are you thoughts on this?
That's a separated footpath, not a regular footpath, and so is subject to Rule 249:
The rider of a bicycle must not ride on a part of a separated footpath designated for the use of pedestrians.
The arrows do have legal standing if there is a 'no entry' sign or similar at the top end of the path, but otherwise just keep to the left of any approaching cyclists and you'll be fine.
I thought there was a sign at the top on the RAH side of the North Terrace / Frome junction saying cyclists can't go on the footpath as Dave M is suggesting. I'll try and find it on google maps.
EDIT: OK I can't see it on google maps. Either it just didn't get picked up or it's not there anymore. I can look tomorrow as I go past.
I've been google mapping myself since I replied.
It appears to be a separated footpath, but not a one-way system. I would suggest the arrows are there to clarify that the normal rule of keeping left for cyclists headed south doesn't apply, as they must use the cyclists' section on the right. There are also arrows pointing north for pedestrians, again to advise against the normal (but not compulsory) convention of walking on the left.
It must also be remembered that a cyclist always has to give way to a pedestrian on a footpath or shared path even if they are walking on the right (against convention, but not illegal) and also on a separated footpath even if they are illegally walking in the section reserved for cyclists. That's our duty of care to the softer users of the space, without which our demands for respect from motorists on the roads are hypocritical.
While cyclists should always take due care around pedestrians, the sign on the traffic lights at the Frome Rd, Victoria drv intersection actually says "Pedestrians give way to cyclists and do not stand on bicycle path".
That advisory sign notwithstanding, it is always the responsibility of a cyclist to prevent a bike-pedestrian collision - even when the pedestrian should have given way.
There is no concept of 'right of way' in Australian traffic law, only the responsibility to give way.
So it would appear that the legal and best option is to cycle on the bike path against the arrows, which is what I do, taking care to keep right over to the left if there is any oncoming bikes.
That's what I would do if I was using that for a distance short enough that it was more practical than riding on the road and taking the lane - including riding at reduced speed as appropriate for such a busy space.
So the only signage I could see this morning is all facing north so you see it only when cycling south up hill. It just indicates a separated with with pedestrians on the left and cyclists on the right. No arrows to indicate cyclists only in one direction. Those are only on the ground.